NIXON NOW BACKS JOB TRAINING BILL

TimesMachine is an exclusive benefit for home delivery and digital subscribers.

About the Archive

This is a digitized version of an article from The Times’s print archive, before the start of online publication in 1996. To preserve these articles as they originally appeared, The Times does not alter, edit or update them.

Occasionally the digitization process introduces transcription errors or other problems; we are continuing to work to improve these archived versions.

Both the Administration, in letter from Secretary of Labor James D. Hodgson two weeks ago, and the House Republican Policy Committee, in a state ment yesterday, urged passage of a bill pending in the House that would create public service jobs for the unemployed. The Senate passed a similar bill a month ago.

The Nixon Administration had been adamantly opposed to, the creation of public service employment, whereby jobless persons would fill positions with Federal, state and local government institutions such as schools and hospitals and po lice and fire departments.

Bill Was Tabled

A small group of Republi cans, with the aid of Represent ative Edith Green, Democrat of Oregon, managed to delay ex pected passage of the House bill with a series of quorum votes. The bill was finally ta bled until after the Nov. 3 elec tions.

The bill would replace the Manpower Act of 1962 by reor ganizing training programs so that Mayors of cities of 100,000 or more population would con trol them, with Governors hav ing similar control in nonmetro politan areas. It would provide for noncategorical funding to permit planning by communi ties; set up a computerized job bank to match the unemployed with jobs, and allow payments to employers for upgrading em ployes.

The bill would cost $2‐billion in the fiscal year 1972, $2.5‐ billion in 1973 and $3‐billion in 1974.

In August, 1969, President Nixon submitted a manpower proposal that would have placed control of training programs with Governors rather than Mayors. But both the Senate and House versions rejected the provision and added several others that were not included in the Administration's measure.

Until the Secretary of Labor's letter, to Representative Carl D. Perkins, Democrat of Ken tucky, who is chairman of the House Labor and Education Committee, the Administration had refused to budge in its position.

But on Sept. 30, Mr. Hodgson informed the chairman that the House's bill was “a responsible response to President Nixon's request for comprehensive man power legislation and is con sonant with the basic principles of manpower program reform he proposed.”

A spokesman for the Labor Department said that, by sup porting Congress's position, “we were trying to show some flexibility in getting the act passed.”